cultivating the grass roots

8/2/2019 Cultivating the Grass Roots

1/52

A Philanthropy at Its BestReport

CULTIVATING THE GRASSROOTSA Winning Approach for Environment and Climate Funde

By Sarah Han


2/52

About the AuthorSarah Hansen consults with foundations and nonprofit organizations to advance multi-issue, pro-gressive social change agendas. She specializes in developing big-picture strategies and long-term

visions connected to concrete, manageable work plans. Sarah currently serves as program advisor to

the Elias Foundation in Westchester County, N.Y., which seeks to promote a more equitable societyby supporting community organizing. She also leads an initiative at the Ford Foundation to convene

four successful community-led public foundations.

Previously, Sarah served as the associate director and senior program officer of the V. Kann

Rasmussen Foundation, doing grantmaking in the environmental health and climate change arenas.

She also led the Starry Night Fund of the Tides Foundation through a theory of change process and

helped the fund determine its $8-million grants portfolio. Prior to that, Sarah served for eight years as

executive director of the Environmental Grantmakers Association, providing leadership in connecting

environmental issues to issues such as globalization, economic inequality, racial justice and commu-

nity empowerment. Sarah helped to found the Funders Network on Trade and Globalization as well

as the Gulf Coast Fund for Community Renewal and Ecological Health. Sarah recently served as a

board member of the North Star Fund, one of New York Citys leading community foundations dedi-

cated to building social change. She currently serves on the solidarity board of Community Voices

Heard, an organization of low-income people working to build power in New York City and NewYork State to improve the lives of families and communities by connecting public policy with grass-

roots organizing and leadership development. Sarah lives in Brooklyn with her partner, Sally Kohn,

and their three-year-old daughter, Willa. She can be reached at [email protected].

AcknowledgmentsThis report is the collaborative result of a visionary and dedicated group of individuals.

First and foremost, I am grateful to the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy for asking

me to author this paper. For Aaron Dorfman, a thank-you for his tireless efforts and just vision for phi-

lanthropy. For Niki Jagpal, a thank-you for her fearless editing and intellectual firepower. For Kevin

Laskowski, a thank-you for his data prowess and impeccable edits.

It was a happy privilege to work with the advisory committee, and I am particularly indebted to Lisa

Abbott, Millie Buchanan, Jeffrey Campbell, Bill Gallegos, Heeten Kalan, Roger Kim, Martha Matsuoka,

Peter Riggs and Jen Sokolove. In addition, my deepest thanks to the devoted team of Benno Friedman,

Lois Gibbs, Peter Montague and Cheryl King Fischer for their unfailing advice and guidance. In particu-

lar, Peter Montague has my everlasting loyalty and affection for being a constant resource of information.

Heartfelt thanks as well to Jeffrey Campbell, Danielle Deane, Denise Joines, Lisa Pike Sheehy and Kolu

Zigbi for providing superb case studies that strengthen this report immensely. And thank you to Janet

Keating, Terry Odendahl and Michele Prichard for allowing me to include exemplary examples of their

organizations work in this report.

A number of people were good enough to read drafts along the way and offer their expert advice:

Harriet Barlow, Sarah Christiansen, Jon Cracknell, Annie Ducmanis, Hugh Hogan, Cathy Lerza, Bruce

Lourie, Anita Nager, Mark Randazzo, Marni Rosen, Jenny Russell, Kathy Sessions, Shelley Shreffler,

Midge Sweet, Lee Wasserman, Maya Wiley and Ken Wilson.

Thank you to Rachel Leon and everyone at the Environmental Grantmakers Association for allowingAaron Dorfman and me to introduce a preliminary draft of this report at the organizations 2010

retreat. The advice we received there was pivotal to the project.

Thank you to Jen Naylor and Kate Frucher for offering up their beautiful home to me as a quiet

daily writing space. Most importantly, loving thanks to my family, especially Zachary, Gloria and

Jeffrey Welcker, who provided great edits and title ideas. And to my partner, Sally Kohn, and our

daughter, Willa Hansen-Kohn, who are a constant source of inspiration and support.

Cover Left column, center: Sierra Student Coalition Director Quentin James speaks at theStop the Keystone XL Pipeline rally outside the DC hearing. Photo by Heather Moyer,

courtesy of the Sierra Club. Top right: Image courtesy of Communities for a Better Environment.


3/52

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1

I. A Call to Opportunity ............................................................................................................ 3The Root of the Problem

We Have to Change to Make Change

Civic Participation

Education and Health

II. The Case for Funding Grassroots Organizing.................................................................... 11Change Consistently Grows from the Ground Up

There is Effective Organizing on Which We Can Build

Nature Favors Diverse Strategies

III. Funding the Grassroots to Win ........................................................................................ 32

IV. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................... 38

References .............................................................................................................................. 40


4/52

Advisory Committee

Organization affiliation for identification purposes only.

Lisa Abbott KENTUCKIANS FOR THE COMMONWEALTH

Michael Brune SIERRA CLUB

Millie Buchanan JESSIE SMITH NOYES FOUNDATION

Jeffrey Y. Campbell THE CHRISTENSEN FUND

Bill Gallegos COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT

Heeten Kalan THE NEW WORLD FOUNDATION

Roger Kim ASIAN PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK

Aileen Lee GORDON AND BETTY MOORE FOUNDATION

Rachel Leon ENVIRONMENTAL GRANTMAKERS ASSOCIATION

Martha Matsuoka OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE

Ed Miller THEJOYCE FOUNDATION

Peter Riggs FORD FOUNDATION

Robby Rodriguez THE ATLANTIC PHILANTHROPIES

Jennifer Sokolove COMPTON FOUNDATION


5/52

Executive Summary

The pace of social change is quickening in

the United States and across the world. From

a historic presidential election in 2008 to the

Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street, long-

standing barriers to justice and equality are

being challenged in every corner of the

globe. Unfortunately, the environmental

movement is not keeping up. New environ-

mental initiatives have been stalled and

attacked while existing regulations have beenrolled back and undermined. At a time when

the peril to our planet and the imperative of

change should drive unyielding forward

momentum, it often seems as if the environ-

mental cause has been pushed back to the

starting line.

The goal of this report is to help environ-

ment and climate funders become effective

resources of a strong and successful move-

ment for change. This report argues that we

can secure more environmental wins by

decreasing reliance on top-down funding

strategies and increasing funding for grass-

roots communities that are directly impact-

ed by environmental harms and have the

passion and perseverance to mobilize and

demand change.

History supports this approach. From

womens suffrage to the civil rights move-

ment to early environmental wins, grassroots

organizing has clearly been a vital lever of

victory. Campaigns against dirty energy as

well as, notably, the success of grassrootscampaigns against environmental regulations

show the power and impact of community-

driven change. Its not merely that grassroots

organizing wins change at the local level

but, in case after case, builds the political

pressure and climate for national change as

well. Moreover, testing a given agenda at the

local level is a practical threshold assess-

ment to determine whether a campaign can

resonate more widely, building from the

ground up to create broad public demand

for change.

The case for supporting grassroots envi-

ronmental efforts is especially strong.

Grassroots organizing is particularly powerful

where social, economic and environmental

ills overlap, as is all too common in lower-

income communities and communities of

color. By engaging with the organizationsthat serve these communities and nurturing

the growth of their leaders, we not only are

investing in a healthy planet and people now,

but also building a movement that reflects

the future demographic majority of America.

This funding strategy will require a dra-

matic shift in our philanthropy. In 2009, envi-

ronmental organizations with budgets of

more than $5 million received half of all

contributions and grants made in the sector,

despite comprising just 2 percent of environ-

mental public charities. From 2007-2009,

only 15 percent of environmental grant dol-

lars were classified as benefitting marginal-

ized communities, and only 11 percent were

classified as advancing social justice

strategies, a proxy for policy advocacy and

community organizing that works toward

structural change on behalf of those who are

the least well off politically, economically

and socially. In the same time period, grant

dollars donated by funders who committed

more than 25 percent of their total dollars tothe environment were three times less likely

to be classified as benefitting marginalized

groups than the grant dollars given by envi-

ronmental funders in general. In short, envi-

ronmental funders are expending tremendous

resources, yet spending far too little on high-

impact, cost-effective grassroots organizing.

The good news is there are many effective,

powerful organizations on the ground,

Cultivating the Grassroots: A Winning Approach for Environment and Climate Fun


6/52

advancing a pro-environment agenda every

day. But they are under-resourced and under-

utilized in our overall advocacy infrastruc-

ture. As environment and climate harms

build up, the number of communities ripe for

organizing also continues to grow. Around

the globe, there is a constituency for environ-

mental change, one that can expand and

mobilize at a massive scale if we fund the

infrastructure needed to do so.

This report is written for funders working

on the full range of environmental change

from conservation to environmental health,

green jobs to climate science, environmental

justice to global sustainability. It shows that

success will require grantmakers who:

Provide at least 20 percent of grant dollarsexplicitly to benefit communities of the

future.

Invest at least 25 percent of grant dollars

in grassroots advocacy, organizing and

civic engagement.

Build supportive infrastructure.

Take the long view, preparing for tipping

points.

Filled with case studies and examples that

illustrate the impact of funding grassroots

organizing for environmental change, this

report provides concrete recommendations

on how funders can increase their engage-

ment with this vast potential constituency.

Together, we can and must support and

expand motivated, grassroots communities

that, by speaking out and taking collective

action, can help advance the bold changeswe all desire.

2

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY


7/52


If you are reading this report, you are likely

among those advocates and activists clamor-

ing for positive change to heal our ailing nat-

ural world. And, as this report is targeted at

individual donors and institutional founda-

tions, you may have some wherewithal to

effect such change. The goal of this report is

to help you channel your resources to organi-

zations that are best equipped to transform

your financial support into a healthier planet,backed by a resilient community of people

committed to protecting it. Grassroots organ-

izing has been a central strategy of almost

every major social and economic transforma-

tion in world history. Why, then, is the envi-

ronmental funding community not supporting

grassroots organizing?

A. THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM

Social movements are at once

the symptoms and the instruments

of progress.

Walter Lippmann

The recent struggle to pass cap and trade leg-

islation is a classic example of environmental

advocates stymied attempts at winning

change, and shows how such issues do not

gain traction if policy strategies are not

directly linked to and organized around self-

interest and grounded in broad-based supportof on-the-ground constituencies.

Cap and trade ideas began in efforts to reg-

ulate national air pollution in the late 1960s

and early 1970s. The Acid Rain Program used

a cap and trade structure to reduce sulfur

dioxide emissions in the 1990s. As it has in

other situations, the financial industry sought

to capitalize on these schemes for its own

benefit. In 1993, the Enron Corporation pro-

posed a system through which companies

would pay for and trade the right to emit car-

bon dioxide.1 Then, in 2008, Goldman Sachs

spent $3.5 million to lobby Congress on cli-

mate issues, including an aggressive push for

cap and trade proposals. Its focus was on cre-

ating new markets for carbon.

According to polls, by a two-to-one mar-

gin, Americans would rather tax all carbon

emissions than create a cap and trade system.2

Communities most directly impacted by dirty

energy in particular oppose cap and trade leg-

islation, given the likely impact of carbon off-

sets on their already-overly polluted neighbor-

hoods concentrating pollution next to their

homes. Yet, large national environmental

organizations and leading politicians in

Washington continued to promote cap and

trade as the hallmark of environmental reform.

Advocates and funders supporting this agenda

believed this was a high risk/high return strate-

gy. They believed that it was absolutely critical

to the future of our planet to limit carbon

emissions as soon as possible, and their politi-

I. A Call to Opportunity

CBE organizer Alicia Rivera at an action outside the California EPABuilding in Sacramento. CBE joined with the Center on Race, Poverty& the Environment (CRPE) in bringing a couple of hundred Californiaresidents to a hearing of the California Air Resources Board on AB 32,Californias landmark 2006 climate change solutions legislation. Imagecourtesy of Communities for a Better Environment.


8/52

cal calculations indicated that cap and trade

was the most likely policy vehicle to make

that happen. They might have believed that

local struggles would be more successful once

federal legislation passed. It was not complete-

ly unreasonable to suspect they might have

succeeded.

However, Anthony Leiserowitz, director of

the Yale Project on Climate Change

Communication, observes that environmental

advocates did little to nothing substantial (or

at least effective) to inform, educate or sell

cap and trade to the American people.3 It is

a complicated idea especially hard to com-

municate when other Wall Street markets are

swirling with corruption and controversy.

Proponents failed to sell the concept ordid not even try. Says Leiserowitz: I think

they decided to pursue a primarily inside-the-

Beltway legislative strategy and got burned.

The national advocacy groups lacked suffi-

cient power on their own to push the legisla-

tion through, especially when many grass-

roots activists, if they understood cap and

trade, did not support it. Many communities

already were dealing with extensive air pollu-

tion and related health problems from dirty

power plants and were rightly concerned

about the lack of public health protections

built into most cap and trade plans. Where

would the trades allowing dirtier operations

go? Not to mention several business model-

based studies that raise profound questions

about the efficacy of market strategies to reg-

ulate carbon.4

Had environmental advocates engaged

with grassroots communities up front, those

concerns and legitimate critiques would have

been paramount in the discussion or mighthave been sufficiently convincing, perhaps

leading to another more viable policy

approach entirely. In other words, grassroots

organizing is not only a strategy for building

public pressure on an issue, but also can

determine whether public will exists in the

first place.

Environment and climate funders tend to

favor influencing national policy directly

whether because, in their personal experi-

ence, change has always been top-down or

because, faced with the urgency of ourwarming planet, they believe top-down

approaches are the most expedient option.5

Perhaps this approach has its appeal because

of current philanthropic trends whereby the

boards and CEOs of large foundations desire

big impact, or maybe, especially for large

funders, its easier to make grants to a small

number of top-down institutions than many

smaller grants to smaller grassroots organiza-

tions or even funding intermediaries that re-

grant smaller amounts.

Whatever the reason, the tendency towardfunding large, national, top-down environ-

mental organizations carries with it the

assumption that if we assemble and concen-

trate resources, we can move the needle.

Sometimes it works, but more often than not,

the power of anti-environment campaign

donors with immense financial resources,

combined with the disinclination of policy-

makers to rupture the status quo, means that


4

Environmental Grantmaking:The Landscape

According to the Foundation Center, a national sam-

ple of 1,384 larger grantmakers (including 800 of the

nations largest grantmakers by total giving) gave $1.4

billion to environmental causes in 2009.6

Environment grants claimed the sixth-largest share

(6.3 percent) of total foundation dollars in 2009 fol-

lowing education (23.3 percent), health (22.6 per-

cent), human services (13.1 percent), public

affairs/society benefit (11.8 percent), and arts and cul-

ture (10.5 percent).7

Grantmakers made at least $10 billion in grants to

environmental causes from 2000 through 2009,8

funding primarily top-down strategies.

Yet, we have not experienced significant policy

changes at the federal level in the United States since

the 1980s remotely commensurate with the level of

funding invested toward these ends. From 1989 to 2009,

among all environmental public charities, environmen-

tal organizations with budgets higher than $5 million

consistently received 40-50 percent of the contribu-

tions, gifts and grants, and 50-60 percent of revenue.9


9/52

an anti-environmental agenda dominates.

Significant change usually comes about

when a critical mass of ordinary people

engages directly with decision-makers, voices

its concerns and pushes for changes that

elites would not otherwise have made.

Were not going to make big changes in cli-

mate as long as climate is seen solely as an

environmental issue, says Ed Miller, environ-

ment program manager of the Joyce Foundation.

Especially at a time when government is under

attack for infringing on individual liberties, it is

all the more essential to link our agenda explic-

itly with the ways in which it helps people and

communities and to invest in base-building

organizations that make that link.

As the adage goes, you can change policyby whispering in the kings ear, but someone

might whisper differently tomorrow, and the

king might change his mind. A vocal, organ-

ized, sustained grassroots base is vital to

achieving sustained change.

B. WE HAVE TO CHANGE TO MAKECHANGE

Curiosity, obsession and dogged

endurance, combined with self-criticism,have brought me to my ideas.

Albert Einstein

The problem is not what environmental advo-

cates and funders have done but what we

have not done.

Most environmental activists and funders

share a gnawing sense that something has to

change. Few environmental activists would

argue that we have done what is needed to

respond to environmental degradation. Itsnot that were not trying. But we are repeat-

edly banging our collective head against

walls of politics and public opinion we

thought we tore down 30 years ago. We have

achieved some important victories. Why are

we not achieving transformative wins to

address environmental problems and climate

change and to advance holistic environmen-

tal solutions that serve people and the planet?


Source: Environmental Grantmakers Association, Tracking the Field Report.

Advocacy and Organizing Givingby EGA Members

Data from the Environmental Grantmakers Association

(EGA) reveal significant funding of advocacy, organizing,

movement-building, education and youth organizing and

public policy-related strategies. In a survey of 196 EGA

member foundations, more than half of respondents

environmental grant dollars and nearly three-quarters of

climate dollars went to these strategies in 2009.

A. Advocacy, Organizingand Public Policy-RelatedStrategies, 52.1%

B. Capacity Building andGeneral Operating, 18.9%

C. Communications /Media, 2.6%

D. Research: Scientific /Environmental, 8.4%

E. Stewardship / Acquisition /Preservation, 16.6%

F. Not Provided, 1.4%

Distribution of Environmental Grants Awarded by EGA

Members Based on EGA Strategies, Circa 2009

Distribution of Environmental Grants Awarded by EGA

Members Based on EGA Strategies for Climate and

Atmosphere, Circa 2009

A. Advocacy, Organizingand Public Policy-RelatedStrategies, 74.0%

B. Capacity Building andGeneral Operating, 5.7%

C. Communications /Media, 5.4%

D. Research: Scientific /

Environmental, 12.0%E. Stewardship /

Acquisition /Preservation, 2.3%

F. Not Provided, 0.5%A

B

C

D

E

F

B

C

D

E

F

A


10/52

Recent data from the National Center for

Charitable Statistics document that funding

resources generally go to larger, national

organizations, even while the number of new

grassroots environmental groups has grown

significantly.

According to the Internal Revenue Service,

there were 28,692 environmental public char-

ities in 2011, reporting nearly $7.5 billion in

total revenue and $21 billion in assets.10

In 2009, those organizations with budgets

of more than $5 million made up just 2 per-

cent of environmental public charities, but

they received half of all contributions and

grants made in the field.11 Similarly in 2009,

nonprofits in just four states California,

New York, Virginia and Massachusetts and

the District of Columbia accounted for 48

percent of contributions, gifts and grants to

environmental groups.12 These five areas are

home to a quarter of environmental groups

and earn nearly half of the environmental

sectors total revenue. Thats not to say these

large nonprofits are not doing worthwhile

6


Using screens developed by the

Environmental Grantmakers Association

(EGA), NCRP developed custom datasets

from the Foundation Centers grants sample

database, which includes detailed annual

grants information on more than 1,300 of the

largest foundations in the United States

(1,339 in 2007; 1,490 in 2008; and 1,384 in

2009). The database includes all grants of

$10,000 or more awarded to organizationsby these larger foundations.

All NCRP data are based on a three-year

average (grantmakers appearing in each of

the 2007-2009 samples), which avoids the

influence of potential outliers, such as a large

grant made only in one year that could influ-

ence the data. The resulting sample was a

matched set of 880 largest foundations (foun-

dations that appear in all three annual sam-

ples), of which 701 grantmakers (80 percent)

made at least one grant on average to the

environment.Over the time period analyzed, these 701

grantmakers collectively gave an average of

$18 billion, including $1.6 billion for the

environment (9 percent of total grantmaking).

Grants then were analyzed by intended

beneficiary to determine the proportion that

were classified as intending to benefit one or

more of 11 marginalized or underserved

populations, including but not limited to

lower-income communities and communities

of color.15

Collectively, only 15 percent of environ-

mental grant dollars were classified as bene-

fiting one of the 11 marginalized popula-

tions included in NCRPs analysis.

A report from the Foundation Center and

the Environmental Grantmakers Association

discovered a similar trend examining thereported beneficiaries of environmental

grants in 2007. Among grantmakers in that

sample, 18 percent of environmental grant

dollars were intended to benefit the econom-

ically disadvantaged, and 3 percent of grant

Environmental Funding: Who Benefits and How?

Percentage of Environmental Grant Dollars

Classified as Benefitting Marginalized Communities

15%


11/52


work or should not be receiving any funding

but, rather, we should question why grass-

roots organizing groups are not receiving

more grantmaking support.

The federal climate change legislation

example above and others throughout this

report prove the ineffectiveness of directing

significant funding to national advocacy

organizations while under-resourcing the

grassroots base-building capacity without

which national organizations lack muscle

and credibility.

Bradford Plumer, associate editor ofThe

New Republic, observed, Green groups do

have vast resources at their disposal that

they dont seem to be using effectively.13

As these data show, a majority of foundation

dollars are going to larger, well-resourced

organizations, suggesting a preference for a

top-down strategy. Just as we know that envi-

ronmental problems disproportionately

impact lower-income communities and com-

munities of color,14 case studies in this report

and elsewhere show that organizing in these

dollars were intended to benefit ethnic or

racial minorities. Grants may benefit one or

more of the populations indicated, including

the general public. The authors noted that

the vast majority (87.1 percent) of environ-

mental grants awarded in 2007 were either

intended to benefit the general public or had

no specified beneficiary.16

NCRP further analyzed the 701 grantmak-

ers using the Foundation Centers social jus-tice screen to determine, as closely as possi-

ble, which environmental grants had policy

or systemic change as a goal and, as such,

likely included funds for advocacy, commu-

nity organizing and civic engagement. The

Foundation Center defines social justice phi-

lanthropy as the granting of philanthropic

contributions to nonprofit organizations

based in the United States and other coun-

tries that work for structural change in order

to increase the opportunity of those who are

the least well off politically, economically,

and socially.17

Only 11 percent of environmental

grant dollars were reported as advancingsocial justice.

In fact, there is a seemingly contradictory

correlation: analysis shows the greater a fun-

ders commitment to the environment, the

less likely it is to prioritize marginalized

communities or advance social justice in its

environmental grantmaking. For instance,

grant dollars donated by funders that com-

mitted more than 25 percent of their total

dollars to the environment were three times

less likely to be classified as benefitting mar-

ginalized groups than the grant dollars givenby environmental funders in general.

If you want to learn more about your own

foundations data and your institution is part

of the Foundation Center database, please

email [email protected].

Source: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy,analysis of custom Foundation Center datasets, 2011.

Percentage of Environmental Grant Dollars

Classified as Advancing Social Justice

11%


12/528


Systems change in agriculture isnt typically

an alluring process, though the outcomes,

when they reach our plates, often are entic-

ing. For example, shoppers purchasing pea

tendrils and other delicacies from Hmong

farmers at a farmers market in Massachusetts

may be falling in love with a new delicacy.

What they dont know and shouldnt reallyneed to know is the back story of policy

development, organizing and advocacy that

allowed the pea tendrils to be grown and

reach their market. However, funders do need

to know that story. They need to understand

how grassroots organizing and national policy

advocacy combine to create positive change.

In this case, the pea tendrils were the out-

come of relationships between the group of

Hmong farmers, a local immigrant farmer

organization called Flats Mentor Farm and a

decades-old national advocacy coalition that

the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation has sup-

ported for many years, the Rural Coalition

(RC). RC is accountable to a membership of

diverse rural grassroots organizations whose

needs and interests drive its advocacy agen-da. It listens to its members needs and then

works with them to develop new policies and

advocate for their implementation.

Thats what happened with the pea ten-

drils. Small farmers observed that the Natural

Resource Conservation Service had money for

on-farm innovations but would not fund what

the immigrant farmers wanted most hoop

houses to extend their growing season. RC

communities strategically advances the

broader change agenda that affects us all.

There is a strategic opportunity to fund com-

munities affected by environmental ills. By

ensuring that these communities are explicit-

ly identified as the beneficiaries of our phi-

lanthropy, we would boost our collective

impact while simultaneously contributing to

the public good. Not only would we be solv-

ing environmental hazards in these commu-

nities, we would be building powerful con-

stituencies to demand change nationwide as

well as building social capital.

Systemic problems requiresystemic solutions.

This report asks us to examine how we canbest effect change on a complicated environ-

mental, political and economic system. The

environmentally devastating status quo is

caused by a tangle of backward policies, per-

verse economic incentives to pollute and

unsupportive public opinion and voting pat-

terns. It will take more than a single, nation-

al advocacy strategy to untie this complex

knot. If we lean too heavily on one strategy

to advance our environmental goals, we are

diminishing our potential to win the fight.

Through systems thinking, we can

understand how a particular dynamic, norm

or structure is connected to an entire, inter-

dependent system of other dynamics, norms

and institutions.18 Although such thinking

might seem natural to those of us who are

intimate with the complexities of the natural

world, in actual practice, systems thinking is

underused. Put differently, ignoring the

interconnectedness of any systems con-

stituent parts will inevitably lead to a dimin-

ished impact. Race, gender, class and other

identity markers work to constrain and keep

communities and individuals from equalityof opportunity.

We cannot view the issue of poverty in

isolation if we want to have impact; we must

view it alongside all the other factors that

influence the prevalence of that poverty. We

need a holistic approach to solve the com-

plex problems such as those our environment

and climate face today.

A Case Study in Community Organizingby Kolu Zigbi, Program Officer for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems,Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation


13/52

Problems in our environment stem from a

long chain of complicated reactions and

overlapping factors. We cannot divorce the

problems of fisheries from problems facing

fishermen. We cannot separate concerns

about factory pollution from concerns about

high unemployment in factory towns, espe-

cially when more than 8 in 10 Americans

live in a metropolitan area.19 We cannot sep-

arate the increase in poverty and decline in

household income from the desire of busi-

nesses to manufacture goods in China and

pollute the oceans shipping them to sell to

struggling consumers at rock-bottom prices.

These issues are all linked and, perhaps more

importantly, they are linked in the minds of

everyday Americans. Conceptually and prac-tically, science is never isolated from culture,

society and the economy.20

The State of Oregons recent adoption of

the most stringent water quality standards in

the nation is a testament to the power of an

integrative approach to environmental prob-

lems. Under the Clean Water Act, states are

responsible for setting their own water quali-

ty standards, subject to the approval of the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

States derive their standards, in part, by

determining how much fish people eat and

then regulating the concentration of pollu-

tants in their waterways so that people cansafely consume that amount of fish. State

fish consumption rates must be at least as

high as EPAs national baseline rate of 17.5

grams per day (roughly enough to top a

cracker). EPA has acknowledged for years

that its baseline standard is not sufficient to

protect certain consumers, such as subsis-

tence fishermen. However, states have


10%

started a letter writing campaign, mobilized

members to attend listening sessions and seek

support for this practice in the Farm Bill and

by the USDA, and engaged in insider organ-

izing. This resulted in the agency agreeing to

fund a pilot study to determine whether hoop

houses are linked to environmental conserva-

tion by reducing the amount of water andother inputs needed to grow vegetables.

Unsurprisingly, once the pilot was created,

out of the many groups that applied to

receive funding, the winner was Flats Mentor

Farm. The groups relationship with RC had

helped develop its capacity so that it was

able to steward the application process for-

ward with farmers who were shovel ready.

Whats beautiful about this story is that immi-

grant farmers piloted the project, and they

continue to see the benefits, with their pro-

duction in the high tunnels surviving a severe

flood in the wake of this summers hurricanes

that destroyed the rest of their production.

However, once USDA evaluates high tunnels

as successful, the long-term result will be that

all farmers, whether fifth generation or firstgeneration, will be eligible to take part.

Already, many more farmers who have not

utilized USDA ever or in recent years, are

coming back for this and other services. This

story demonstrates the power of true systems

approaches empowering those who remain

at the margins results in broad benefits for all

in the long term.

We cannot view the issue of

poverty in isolation if we want

to have impact; we must view

it alongside all the other factors

that influence the prevalence

of that poverty.


14/52

almost uniformly adopted EPAs default fish

consumption rate in the interest of retaining

businesses that might relocate to take advan-

tage of more relaxed water quality standards

in another state.

This regulatory scheme created a serious

environmental justice problem among mem-

bers of the Confederated Tribes of the

Umatilla Indian Reservation. Oregons water

quality standards did not permit Umatilla

Indians to safely subsist on fish, so the tribes

helped orchestrate a fish consumption survey

and fish contamination study establishing that

tribal members face a disproportionate can-

cer risk based on the amount of fish they eat.

This information was so influential on the

EPA that the agency ultimately rejected itsown baseline fish consumption rate when

Oregon submitted it for approval. A cooper-

ative effort by the Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality, Umatilla tribes and

the EPA to determine a fish consumption rate

that was more protective of Native Americans

followed, and the EPA ultimately approved

water quality standards based on a fish con-

sumption rate of 175 g/day. The State of

Washington now is in the process of revising

its standards, and Native American fish con-

sumption rates are again driving the discus-

sion. Both of these states are going to have

healthier people and cleaner water because

Indian people put a face on a pernicious

environmental problem.

For too long, national environmental advo-

cates and scientists have been hanging pleas

for environmental change on the apolitical

hook of rational appeals, expecting decision

makers to do the right thing when confronted

with powerful evidence. Yet, in many ways,

complex political systems are like the human

body. No matter how smart and articulate our

agenda, our pleas for change will continue to

be ignored if we lack the power to back themup. Even if we fund in single, focused-issue

areas, we can benefit from a broader analysis

of the systemic forces behind environmental

crises and understanding how any one solu-

tion complements or contradicts others. We

must make our demands for change impossi-

ble to ignore. That means working at every

level of the system to achieve change, includ-

ing the grassroots.

10



15/52


The most persuasive reason for funding grass-

roots organizing as a strategy to achieve envi-

ronmental victories in public policy and pub-

lic opinion is quite simple: mobilized and

organized communities can challenge power

and create lasting change with ripple effects

that benefit us all.

A. CHANGE CONSISTENTLY GROWSFROM THE GROUND UP

A body of determined spirits fired by

an unquenchable faith in their mission

can alter the course of history.

Mohandas K. Gandhi

The American environmental movement by

no means began as a grassroots enterprise. At

the start of the 20th century, conservationism

was led by elites like President Theodore

Roosevelt and groups like the Boone and

Crockett Club American hunting riflemen

drawn from the top ranks of politics, business

and the military. Their concern was not

industrial waste poisoning crops or pollution

sickening new immigrants in tenement hous-

ing. The early environmentalists primarily

wanted to conserve nature for their recre-

ational enjoyment.

In the 1960s, the movement changed.

Through her groundbreaking book, SilentSpring, Rachel Carson showed everyday

Americans how environmental degradation

was threatening their health and way of life.

Americans who had no real stake in conser-

vation of nature for hunting and horseback

riding came to understand how they were

directly affected by pollution and toxics.

Carson, a biologist by training, was con-

cerned early on with the dangerous effects of

pesticides. When, in 1958, she read a letter

from a friend about the spontaneous death of

flocks of birds resulting from aerial DDT

spraying, Carson launched the research that

would lead to Silent Spring. Carson spoke to

the concerns of tenement residents and work-

ers rights activists who had long been con-

cerned with urban and industrial pollution

but channeled their critiques into housing

and workplace reforms, not environmental-ism. Carson paved the way for local commu-

nities across the United States to advocate for

environmental health.

Around the same time, several high profile

events raised awareness among ordinary

Americans of the extraordinary environmental

risks facing their families and communities.

For example, in 1969, the Cuyahoga River in

Ohio caught fire. The intensely polluted river

had caught fire before, but this time the blaze

was worse and ignited a national debate. As

Time magazine wrote, Some river!

Chocolate-brown, oily, bubbling with subsur-

face gases, it oozes rather than flows.

In 1970, the first Earth Day was organ-

ized with the goal of sparking a national

grassroots movement. Founder Gaylord

Nelson wrote, I was satisfied that if we

could tap into the environmental concerns

of the general public and infuse the student

anti-war energy into the environmental

cause, we could generate a demonstration

that would force this issue onto the politicalagenda. On the first Earth Day, 10,000

schools and 2,000 colleges organized spe-

cial classes about environmental issues. In

Pittsburgh, community-based organizations

derided as the breathers lobby by the

Wall Street Journal marched through

downtown wearing gas masks and carrying

a coffin to demonstrate against the poor

quality of the citys air.

II. The Case for Funding Grassroots Organizing


16/52

In 1978, in the community around Love

Canal in upstate New York, mothers and fam-

ilies organized to protest widespread health

problems caused by 21,000 tons of chemical

waste buried under their towns public

schools. According to the leading Love Canal

organizer, Lois Gibbs, Our struggle, like the

struggles that had come before, changed

public opinion.

The seeming increase in grassroots advo-

cacy and growing public awareness of the

era led to strong environmental laws like the

Wilderness Act (1965), the Clean Air Act

(1967), the Occupational Safety and Health

Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1973) and

the Superfund Act (1980).21 Awareness of the

power of organizing to effect such changes,combined with the disproportionate impact

of environmental degradation especially on

lower-income communities of color, drove

the emergence of the modern environmental

justice movement that informs the critiques

and ideas contained in this report.

Throughout the environmental movement,

grassroots organizing often has been the

linchpin for bringing an important issue to the

nations attention. For instance, the pros and

cons of nuclear weapons had been debated

before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in1945. Scientists were concerned about the

potential for environmental and human catas-

trophe. The bombing of Hiroshima raised

those issues for American citizens and people

around the world, but most advocacy to ban

nuclear weapons came from the scientific and

academic communities.

Then, in 1961, spawned by increased

weapons testing on U.S. soil, a grassroots

organization called Women Strike For Peace

organized 50,000 women to march in 60

cities across the country demonstrating

against nuclear weapons. As a direct result,

two years later the United States and the

Soviet Union signed a nuclear test-ban

treaty.22 According to historian Lawrence S.

Wittner, grassroots anti-nuclear organizing

led directly to other policy shifts throughout

the 1950s and 60s.23 In its September 1975

issue, Forbes magazine stated, The anti-

nuclear coalition has been remarkably suc-

cessful [and] has certainly slowed the

expansion of nuclear power.24 The recent

very human tragedy at Japans Fukushima

nuclear plant in March 2011 and the result-

ing activism against nuclear power is once

again sparking this important public debate.

Throughout history, across issues, the

greatest political, economic and socialchanges have come about when people join

together to demand a better future. Grassroots

energy made the difference in the suffrage

movement when, together, ordinary women

fought for the right to vote, and their work

began at the Seneca Falls Convention in

1848. Although a few individual, wealthy

white women were allowed to vote, even in

colonial times, and Jeanette Rankin was elect-

ed the first female member of Congress in

1914, women did not get the legal right to

vote until grassroots voices gained momentumthrough the years and rose up. The National

Womens Party staged the first protest outside

the White House in 1917, and three years

later, women won the right to vote.

Mobilized grassroots and local communi-

ties made the difference in the labor move-

ment when ordinary working people formed

unions and demanded reforms that helped

not just themselves but all workers from

safety standards to minimum wage laws and

more. Grassroots organizing is a means

toward an end building a coherent move-

Grassroots organizing is a means toward an end building a coherent movement

that impacts change on a larger scale. It is a vital tool in the history of social change,

one that the environmental movement clearly cannot do without.


12


17/52


18/52

toward a clean energy economy. Including

the advocacy of local Sierra Club chapters,

grassroots organizing was able to effect

change. This is just one of many examples

where grassroots organizing has led to broad

environmental change made possible bystrategic philanthropic investments.

The potential impact of grassroots organiz-

ing evident in the opposition to pro-environ-

ment goals also is instructive. In 2008, no

one had heard of the modern-day Tea Party.

By 2010, the movement was a household

name and, more importantly, a force to be

reckoned with in Washington, D.C. The

Republican Party and its most prominent

public faces now work relentlessly to gain

support of the Tea Party and use its cache to

support their interests. The 2010 midtermelections ushered in a crop of Tea Party-

endorsed members of Congress who upset

established Republicans rule. During the

debt crisis negotiations in the summer of

2011, mainstream commentators observed

that the Tea Party Caucus held the political

debate hostage. And, regarding environ-

mental policy, the Tea Party has vigorously

and effectively opposed every promising pro-

posal on Capitol Hill.

The New York Times reports, Skepticism

and outright denial of global warming areamong the articles of faith of the Tea Party

movement.28 Dick Armey, author ofGive

Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto, told a

congressional committee that environmen-

talists are hypochondriacs and that worry-

ing about global warming is pretentious.29

Tea Party activists have railed against every-

thing from clean water regulations to effi-

cient light bulb standards. Defending the

incandescent light bulb, conservative radio

host and Tea Party icon Rush Limbaugh said,

Its not causing global warming; its not

causing a carbon footprint. All of this is a

hoax.30 Another Tea Party group argued that

the regulation of carbon emissions should

be left to God.31 Sentiments like these

have been echoed at local Tea Party rallies

all across the United States.

As a grassroots mobilization, the Tea

Party offers environmental activists two

important lessons. First, the fact that conser-

vatives have effectively mobilized communi-

ties against environmental protection/conser-

vation suggests the power of organizing in

general and the need for a pro-environment

grassroots movement in particular.Calling the Tea Party grassroots can be

controversial. After all, major national organi-

zations backed by major establishment politi-

cal donors have fueled much of the infra-

structure for Tea Party energy. But still, social

movement scholars like Theda Skocpol and

Vanessa Williamson note the Tea Party

authentically engages and mobilizes grass-

roots energy among conservatives, albeit a far

smaller and less representative swath of

extreme conservatives than the Tea Party proj-

ects itself as representing.32 The values of theTea Party reflect exclusively the opinion of a

small segment of the white population. It

does not reflect the overall populations

views on these issues, and, as other statistics

cited in this report suggest, communities of

color and lower-income communities still

seem to place a high value on addressing

environmental and climate harms.

Through organizing and spreading its mes-

sage locally, the Tea Party has influenced many

other Americans. Polls show that Americans are

less concerned about global warming todaythan they were just a few years ago.33 And,

according to Gallup, Americans now believe

economic growth should take precedence over

environmental protection reversing a 25-year

trend in previous opinion polls.34 This downturn

in opinion is particularly acute among conserva-

tives. According to the Pew Research Center, in

October 2010, 53 percent of Republicans said

there is no solid evidence the earth is warming,


14

[Recent] positive developments

underscore both the power

of grassroots organizing in

shaping public discourse and the

value of linking environmentalism

to other causes.


19/52


while only three years prior 62 percent of

Republicans said they did believe in global

warming.35 In an expos on failed climate

change legislation, New Yorker writer Ryan

Lizza summed it up best: The Republican Party

had grown increasingly hostile to the science of

global warming and to cap-and-trade, associat-

ing the latter with a tax on energy and more

government regulation.36

Polls show that Tea Party loyalists are a

small minority of Americans.37 Nonetheless,

by effectively organizing that minority, the

Tea Party has a major influence on political

debates. Despite concerns about the econo-

my and the rights efforts to sow doubts

around climate change, the vast majority of

Americans still support enacting and enforc-ing environmental policies and regulations in

general.38 Imagine what pro-environment

grassroots organizing could achieve.

The second instructive lesson to be

learned from the Tea Party is the role that fun-

ders can play in prioritizing support of grass-

roots organizing. In a jab at the Tea Party,

President Barack Obamas senior advisor

David Axelrod called it a grassroots citizens

movement brought to you by a bunch of oil

billionaires.39

But jabs aside, the oil industry billionaireKoch brothers who have funded much of the

infrastructure that supports the Tea Party see

grassroots organizing as a key political strate-

gy. To bring about social change, Charles

Koch said in one interview, a strategy is

required that is vertically and horizontally

integrated, spanning from idea creation to

policy development to education to grass-

roots organizations to lobbying to litigation to

political action.40 Through their support of

the Tea Party, the Koch brothers and other

anti-environment funders did not just wish

for a grassroots movement, they financed it.

Since 1997, the Koch brothers have funneled

at least $55 million to bolster anti-environ-

mental organizing at the grassroots level.41

The rapid advancement of their abhorrent

goals makes a strong case for pro-environ-

ment funders to understand the value ofgrassroots organizing.

Fortunately, there is emerging, contempo-

rary evidence of the effectiveness of grass-

roots organizing to help the environment

rather than hurt it. In 2011, community

activists in the Midwest and across the

United States mobilized to protest the exten-

sion of the Keystone pipeline that would

bring toxically extracted oil from Canadas tar

sands through sensitive aquifers and farm

lands to refineries in the South. Through

grassroots pressure, opponents of the pipelinewon over unusual allies such as the conser-

vative governor of Nebraska, who early on

The huge tar sands protest crowd starts to circle the White House on Nov. 6th, 2011. Photo by Javier Sierra, courtesyof the Sierra Club.


20/52


21/52

coalitions to build political strength across

organizations, bridge issue silos, have

greater impact on national policy and sus-

tain the infrastructure needed for mass

movements.44

Importantly, this definition draws a line

between national organizations that might

parachute into local communities for one-

time policy campaigns versus authentic, local

organizations that not only work on those

same short-term campaigns but, just as

importantly, build long-term leadership and

capacity in the community to amplify change

in the future.

In short, community organizing engages

people to win real changes for themselvesand for all of us.

Movement building is community organ-

izing and mobilization taken to a mass scale.

While community organizing groups may be

relatively confined (such as to their own

members or own issue agenda), social move-

ments spread out from such boundaries to

engage a much wider group of people in a

much broader demand for change. According

to social movement scholar Doug McAdam,

a social movement thrives on the interplay of

four factors:45 The right political moment or opportunity.

Readiness of indigenous, grassroots organ-

izations to take advantage of that moment.

A belief that the movement is leading in a

successful direction.

The support of external groups and allies.

In other words, social movements can and

often do grow from grassroots organiza-

tions, but not necessarily so. Grassroots

organizations can make the leap to be a

part of a much broader, national or eveninternational call for change, but that leap

is not necessary or automatic. While there

are many finer distinctions that could be

made here, for purposes of this paper, our

assumption is that mass movements for

environmental health and justice are desir-

able and that such movements can grow

strategically from community organizing at

the grassroots level.

Infrastructure is part of what makes not

only social movements and grassroots organi-

zations more effective but what ultimately

can knit them together. According to

Funding Social Movements, a 2003 report by

the New World Foundation, social move-

ments are not built overnight, but in stages.46

They require strong anchor organizations,grassroots organizing, strategic alliances and

networks among multiple constituencies.

Groups that provide media training, fundrais-

ing skills, leadership development or even

just shared meeting space can be essential

back-end supports for movement organiza-

tions and formations.

One example is the Center for Health,

Environment and Justice (CHEJ), which pro-

vides everything from technical assistance on

local advocacy campaigns to small capacity

building grants. By nurturing emerginggroups and providing ongoing feedback and

coaching for more seasoned organizations,

while convening meetings and alliances for

all groups to connect and work together,

CHEJ helps till the soil and spread the nutri-

ents in which grassroots organizing and

movement building thrive.

The Institute for Conservation Leadership

(ICL) is another organization that provides train-

ing, coaching and other technical assistance to

build the capacity of grassroots environment

and climate-focused groups and coalitions. ICLis an outgrowth of a small project initiated as

part of the National Wildlife Federation and

became an independent group in 1990 with

funding from the Pew Charitable Trusts. It now

offers a full range of capacity building and lead-

ership development services to organizations at

the local, state, regional and national levels

focused on protecting the environment and

addressing climate change issues.


Community organizing engages

people to win real changes for

themselves and for all of us.


22/52


23/52

You would not think of Benham and

Lynch, Ky., as likely hotbeds of political

activism. Lying in a small valley at the base

of Black Mountain the highest peak in

Kentucky these are historic coal mining

towns where over the years people from 34

different countries have made their homes

and worked the mines. The lingering effects

of the mine economy are felt in the soil of

the region and its residents lungs.

Determined to define a future beyond coal,

Kentuckians for the Commonwealth (KFTC)

organizes the communities of Benham and

Lynch to enforce existing mining laws and

advocate for stronger regulations. Led by

grassroots community leaders, KFTC also is

developing sustainable economic alternativesto mining and promoting renewable energy

sources, key to getting all residents of the

job-starved state on board with change. As a

result, the towns are revitalizing economical-

ly and the residents now are engaged partici-

pants in their democracy.

KFTC is a statewide membership organiza-

tion with a 30-year history of advancing eco-

nomic, social and environmental justice at the

local, state and national levels. What does its

organizing look like? KFTC has helped thou-

sands of individuals and hundreds of commu-nities like Benham and Lynch learn their way

around federal laws and administrative

processes. KFTC has held technical work-

shops (on topics such as how to read mining

maps, get permits enforced and test water

samples), and trained people in basic organiz-

ing skills (such as how to run meetings, speak

in public and use nonviolent direct action).

The organization has built alliances with

grassroots organizations in other coalfields

from Montana to Wyoming, from West

Virginia to Virginia, and from Black Mesa,Ariz., to Colombia, South America.

Since 2008, the coal industry has invested

millions in local propaganda campaigns that

have heightened the level of fear and hostility

throughout tight-knit rural communities such

as Benham and Lynch. Despite that, says

organizing and leadership development direc-

tor Lisa Abbott, KFTCs persistent and patient

organizing created the conditions for ordinary

peoples voices to be heard. While we are a

long way from launching an economic transi-

tion in the mountains or ending destructive

strip mining, were closer than ever before.

And its hard to imagine where we would be

were it not for the long-term efforts of grass-

roots organizing of groups like KFTC.

Heeten Kalan, senior program officer for

the Environmental Health and Justice Fund at

the New World Foundation, has been funding

KFTC for many years and encourages other

funders to consider the strength in such multi-

issue organizations. Kentuckians for the

Commonwealth is a multi-issue organization

working with thousands of its members to

connect issues of criminal justice to jobs to

the environment to peoples livelihoods andcommunity resilience, says Kalan. They

make the connections, their members make

the connections. Why cant funders make

those connections and start funding outside

our narrow silos? We are going to need more

than just the traditional environmental organ-

izations to get anywhere, and it is time for

the philanthropic community to look beyond

traditional environmental organizations.

This is just one example of the work of

KFTC, and KFTC, in turn, is just one example

of many grassroots organizations that harnessthe anger and frustration of environmentally

devastated residents and communities to

achieve positive change. In organizations that

set their agendas and build power according to

the passions and needs of everyday people,

community engagement is not an afterthought

but is built into the process. In this manner,

organizations like KFTC mobilize thousands

upon thousands of people to win change at the

local, state and national levels. There are

organizations like KFTC in every corner of the

world, and even more communities likeBenham and Lynch hungry for organizing.

Investing in and building existing grass-

roots organizations is more efficient and

effective than parachuting in national con-

sultants and organizations for short-term

campaigns. John Mitterholzer, program offi-

cer at the George Gund Foundation in Ohio,

talks about the growing coalition of grass-

roots environmental organizations building



24/52

power in his state. Mitterholzer wishes that,

when national environmental funders want to

invest in Ohio around election time or a par-

ticular policy campaign, they would invest in

existing local groups rather than dropping in

on national groups or specialists. When you

parachute people in, if theyre really good,

they are good, but when they leave, the data-

base and the resources leave, too, says

Mitterholzer.54 Community groups can be

supported to achieve the same goals for

short-term campaigns. Plus, investing in

grassroots organizing builds the communitys

capacity to win not just around elections, but

consistently over time, potentially building

toward even more change in the future.

20


In 2004, the William and Flora Hewlett

Foundation launched a California grantmaking

initiative called New Constituencies for the

Environment (NCE).57 The foundation invested

more than $20 million over a seven-year period

to strengthen the environmental movement in

California by expanding the range of groups

advocating for clean air to include medical, faith-

based and labor groups, as well as environmental

and health organizations that had evolved in

minority communities. Hewlett had traditionallysupported larger NGOs focused on these issues

but, because of concerns about slowing progress

and in the face of a rapidly growing and diverse

population, the foundation theorized that includ-

ing a broader range of groups would ensure con-

tinued high-level public support for balancing

growth with a healthy environment.

The NCE grantmaking differed from

Hewletts usual way of functioning in some key

ways. For example, the Environment Program

conducted more extensive than usual pre-grant-

making outreach over several months to identify

potential grantees, assessing their organizationalcapacity and overlap with the programs strate-

gies. To be strategic, and informed by outreach

feedback, grantmaking was targeted to organi-

zations focused on air pollution policy and

related climate and energy issues.

Hewlett invested in strengthening the organi-

zations in a number of key areas. Hewlett

engaged communications consultants to work

specifically with small and medium-sized

organizations, bolstering their communications

capacity and ability to interact with journalists,

editorial boards, elected officials and other poli-

cy leaders. Hewlett also realized that it needed

to engage with ethnic media more intentionally

and made changes to its annual environment

poll to include ethnic media briefings that

included some of the NCE grantees. The foun-

dation invested significant funds into improving

information sharing and collaboration among

regional and state grantees. Hewlett often sup-

plemented regular grants with OrganizationalEffectiveness grants, to allow leaders to choose

consultants to help build some aspect of staff

capacity. This proved especially useful for

smaller groups. Most sought consulting to beef

up their staffs fundraising strategies and skills,

pointing to a real need the underfunding of

these groups. This must be addressed to help

generate the pressure needed for solutions that

align with the scope of the problems we face.

We ensured researcher consultations with

grantees before, during and after reports were

commissioned. This helped us build trust and fos-

ter peer learning, as well as bolster our granteesability to interpret and use data. We leveraged

Hewletts convening power, giving grantees

increased opportunities to build deeper relation-

ships with influential leaders, e.g., through meet-

ings with the California Latino Legislative Caucus

Foundation and the Black Chamber of Commerce

Foundation. NCE grantees noted an increase in

the attention paid to air pollution issues from

minority leaders once they heard more directly

from the communities they served about the dis-

New Constituencies for the Environment: A Case Studyby Danielle Deane, former program officer for the environmentat the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation56


25/52

Communities are ripe for engagement.Because environmental issues so deeply

affect our daily lives, many people readily

engage in environmental activism when

issues are presented on their terms.Philanthropic activist Cathy Lerza describes a

compelling example of this in her 2011

report produced for the Funders Network on

Transforming the Global Economy, A Perfect

Storm: Lessons From The Defeat Of

Proposition 23.55 There also is a valuable

and poignant, nine-minute documentary on

the case, Where We Live: The Changing Face

of Climate Activism.

In 2006, the California State Legislature

passed a groundbreaking law to restrict


proportionate harms being suffered. In keeping

with Hewletts general grantmaking approach, we

strove to provide as much multiyear and general

operating support as possible.

This support, together of course with impor-

tant contributions by other foundations and

partners, contributed to grantees advocacy

successes. An example was Californias adop-

tion of its landmark diesel truck rule a few

years into the initiative: several members of the

environmental community from differentcamps said it was the best collaboration they

had seen across the different elements of the

environmental community. More grassroots

groups were strategically engaged and consult-

ed, and this win was particularly impressive as

it came during the economic downturn.

Californias diesel truck standards are among

the strongest in the nation. And at the nations

largest gateway for receiving imports, the Los

Angeles-Long Beach Port, air pollution from

trucks is now 70 percent lower as the result of

a program the grantees helped to advocate for.

In Californias most polluted region in theCentral Valley, better science and medical

expertise must now be part of the clean air

decision, and many have commented that the

public process has significantly more and

more effective participation than in the past.

When some interest groups tried to weaken

Californias landmark climate change efforts,

the strengthened web of relationships to build

on to educate and organize played a valuable

role. Many foundations contributed to a wide

range of organizations on each of these issues,

but independent feedback indicates that the

field has benefitted from Hewletts channeling

more funding into the NCE organizations.

Funding smaller organization is more time-

intensive, particularly in the nascent stages, but

the effort to fund and grow the small and medi-

um-sized organizations delivers. It is vital if we

hope to make our air, water and land healthier

for everyone. Not every group we invested in

worked out and some efforts died on the vine;some barriers of capacity, trust and leadership

could not be overcome. This is not a story of

giving to groups without high expectations, or

giving equally to all grantees out of a sense of

fairness. But it is a narrative about patient,

high-reward grantmaking where everyone,

including the funder, learns. To keep us on

track, we engaged savvy evaluators who were

not slaves to numbers but who make sure to

help grantees quantify what is meaningful.

Payoff is significant in some ways that are meas-

urable and some that are not easy to quantify.58

Given the scale of our environmental prob-lems and the challenges of our political system,

we need to scale up the resources for small and

medium-sized organizations that are doing

great advocacy work. More systematic relation-

ship building and information flows between

large and small organizations is needed, and it

must be done with care, humility and high stan-

dards. This is essential if we are to win the bat-

tle to achieve growth that is healthy for busi-

nesses, people and the environment.


26/52

greenhouse gas emissions in the state. Just

four years later, a group of Texas oil compa-

nies used Californias ballot measure

process to attempt to stop the implementa-

tion of the law.

The oil companies backing the repeal

measure called Proposition 23 claimed

that clean energy programs would increase

unemployment and stifle the economy. It

was a classic attempt to alienate lower-

income communities and communities ofcolor from the environmental movement,

suggesting that environmental regulation

was causing the high unemployment from

which its communities suffered, and that

more regulations would make the problem

worse. But environmental, economic and

racial justice organizations in California

joined forces to create Communities United

Against the Dirty Energy Proposition to

organize in the lower-income communities

of color most impacted by environmental

ills and, thus, inform the debate and spread

opposition to the ballot measure.

Contrary to stereotypes of environmen-

talism as a predominantly white, upper

class issue, lower-income communities and

communities of color were actively

engaged in this fight. A broad set of multi-

issue groups built a coalition of hundreds of

grassroots organizations including business-

es, unions, health care providers, public

health organizations and faith based

groups. For instance, the Asian Pacific

Environmental Network (APEN) built on its

18-year history of organizing Asian commu-

nities in California to mobilize votersagainst Proposition 23. Although early

polling showed that only a quarter of Asian-

Pacific American voters were likely to vote

against the measure, APEN launched a

comprehensive campaign to educate and

inform its community using mail, media,

and voter contact strategies. APEN had

direct conversations with more than 15,000

voters of Chinese descent, the largest Asian

ethnic group in California and the U.S., pri-

marily in their native languages of

Mandarin or Cantonese and ultimatelyidentified more than 11,000 no votes on

the ballot measure. Not only did seven out

of ten voters commit to voting no on

Proposition 23, the turnout of voters APEN

contacted and identified was 8 percent

more than the statewide turnout rate of reg-

istered voters. With minimal resources,

APEN showed that Asian immigrant voters

care about environmental issues and they

also turn out to vote.

Overall, Communities United Against the

Dirty Energy Proposition, the anti-Proposition 23 coalition, had one-on-one

conversations with more than 250,000

households across California, and organized

six college events specifically designed to

speak to the community members they

needed to reach. These events featured

prominent hip hop artists, and secured

favorable media coverage in ethnic newspa-

pers and on ethnic radio stations. Grassroots

22


Image courtesy of Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN).


27/52


28/5224


Patagonias mission is to build the best prod-

uct, cause no unnecessary harm and use busi-

ness to inspire and implement solutions to the

environmental crisis. An active, informed citi-

zenry is our best chance for positive change.

Therefore, we support grassroots environmen-

tal groups people working together to pro-

tect land, air, water and wildlife.

Our environmental grants program funds

primarily grassroots groups sometimes over-

looked by other funders because of their

small size or edgy, activist approach. We

have seen evidence that such groups are

effective and we recognize the power of

engaged citizens taking radical and strategic

steps to protect habitat, wilderness and biodi-

versity. Were talking about regular people

who just want the government to live up to

its obligation to protect our air, water and

other natural resources: mothers fighting to

clean up toxic dumpsites, neighbors workingtogether to stem urban sprawl. These are the

people on the front lines, trying to make gov-

ernment either obey its own laws or recog-

nize the need for a new law.

For example, in 2010, 70 Patagonia

employees traveled to Louisiana to help

activists uncover the social, economic and

health impacts of the Gulf oil spill on affect-

ed communities. Patagonia hadnt budgeted

for the unforeseen disaster, but we found

$300,000 in additional grant money to help

with recovery. Two-thirds of it went to emer-gency funding divided among the Louisiana

Bucket Brigade, SkyTruth, Southwings, Gulf

Restoration Network and Gulf Coast Fund,

among others. Approximately $30,000 went

toward turning every $100 in employee

donations into $300. And the remaining

$70,000 paid for seven groups of 10

Patagonia employee volunteers to spend a

week in the Gulf working in seven different

communities. Because of our in-depth rela-

tionship built over time with groups on the

ground, we were able to get involved beyond

just giving money we were able to respond

right away and deepen the experience.

The first group of employees arrived in

Louisiana amid a July 2010 swelter to work

with the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, an envi-

ronmental health and justice group based inNew Orleans. Our employees walked door-

to-door in communities across southeastern

Louisianas coastal parishes surveying resi-

dents about the public health, cultural and

financial impacts theyd felt from the spill. In

other words, we didnt just offer money to

groups to get other people involved we got

involved ourselves.

Id never done anything like this before,

Naomi Helbling, an employee from our

Seattle store, wrote upon her return from five

days in Empire, La. The feeling was inde-

scribable as I walked down a long, exposed

driveway to the door of a complete stranger

to ask, How has your familys health and

livelihood been impacted by the worlds

largest oil spill? We helped the Bucket

Brigade andhelped explain community

organizing throughout our own company.

The Bucket Brigade took the information

we collected in our 954 surveys and com-

bined it with eyewitness reports from Gulf

residents about odors, tar balls, mysteriouscoughs and other impacts. With it, the group

created a web-based Oil Spill Crisis Map

(www.oilspill.labucketbrigade.org) that visu-

alizes the effects of the spill. The map pro-

vides important information for use by

NGOs, government agencies, state and local

wildlife agencies and the public, and should

prove invaluable in documenting impacts.

A Case Study on Funding Grassroots Organizingby Lisa Pike Sheehy, Director of Environmental Initiatives, Patagonia, Inc.


29/52

We can win the future.In Kentucky, California and elsewhere, envi-

ronmental degradation is increasing and the

number of people who desire environmental

change is on the rise. While funders continueto underinvest in organizing, the potential for

such robust organizing grows.

The next generation of leaders, in particu-

lar, acutely feels the sting of environmental

degradation and is already engaging in the

fight for change. At the 2011 gathering of

Powershift, a youth-led conference put on by

the youth-led organization, Energy Action

Coalition, there were more than 10,000 par-

ticipants making it one of the largest

activist gatherings of the year. In the 2008

elections, young people made their presencefelt as a pivotal voting block in the presiden-

tial election. In politics and activism in gen-

eral, young people are an increasingly pow-

erful force that political elites are actively

courting, noted a 2009 article in The

Ecologist.59

The New Organizing Institute (NOI) notes

that younger people between the ages of 18

and 29 comprise nearly one-third (29 per-

cent) of the Emerging Majority, made up of

Latino, African American, Native American

and other communities of color. In contrast,youth make up only 16 percent of the rest of

the population. Nearly two-thirds (or 59 per-

cent) of all U.S. citizens in this age group are

a part of this emerging majority.60

This also is a worldwide phenomenon. In

2008, 12-year-old Alec Loorz founded Kids

Versus Global Warming, which organizes

youth marches worldwide to support environ-

mental change. Recently, Kids Versus Global

Warming has held 170 events in more than

40 countries from Nigeria to Indonesia.

One march was even organized by the son of

an oil executive in Kuwait.61 Young people

are some of the most creative and dedicated

activists now, says Loorz. We have a

voice.62

One young leader at the Powershift con-

ference remarked not only on the growth of

youth activists but also on their strategies.

Young people, said Courtney Hight, execu-

tive director of the Energy Action Coalition,

are frustrated with the lack of progress on

environment issues at the federal level, and

believe that they must demonstrate a public

commitment to real change on climate poli-

cy, which is why were so focused on move-

ment building.63

The Gulf Coast Fund provided funds to

rent buses and organize a delegation of more

than 200 students from Historically Black

Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in the

Gulf South to attend Powershift. Dr. Beverly

Wright at the Deep South Center for

Environmental Justice leveraged funders to

support a delegation of students and faculty

advisors from HBCUs to the UN Climate

Change Conference in Durban, South Africa,as well as to the last Conference of the

Parties (COP) summit. Not only are these stu-

dents from areas acutely vulnerable to cli-

mate change and environmental degradation

(as Hurricane Katrina, the BP oil spill and

countless other examples attest), more impor-

tantly, they are hugely invested in creating a

clean, sustainable future.

Our nation is becoming increasingly racial-

ly and ethnically diverse. By 2042, Census

data estimate that minorities will become

the majority in the United States.64 New immi-grants may come from countries with robust

histories of social change movements that,

combined with the increasing racial diversity

of Americas communities, provide an oppor-

tunity to diversify the ethnic composition of

the environmental movement.

Unlike many of the professional advocates

in Washington, D.C., people of color, immi-

grants, poor people and young people often

are living face to face with the devastating

impacts of environmental degradation. Polls

suggest that this rising community of voters unmarried women, African Americans,

Latinos and young people in particular sup-

port green jobs proposals and environmental

justice laws at significantly higher rates than

other constituencies.65 These growing com-

munities have the self-interest to do some-

thing and, increasingly, the collective power

to potentially make real change but may lack

the support or resources to organize.



30/52

C. NATURE FAVORS DIVERSE STRATEGIES

The human race is challenged more than

ever before to demonstrate our mastery

not over nature but of ourselves.

Rachel Carson, Silent Spring

People need many things from the forest.

That is the mantra of Hari Prasad Neupane, a

grassroots leader with a networ

cultivating the grass roots

Documents